1hundredsixty8

I always find the “big vs.small” government discussion a bit fatuous. “Big government” is a pejorative, and whatever connotation supposedly attaches to the term is fogged over by the very sarcasm of its employment. The proper role of government is to actualize a simple political imperative- “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Therefore, government should be defined by its efficacy in achieving this goal rather than its “size”. There are legitimate differences of opinion (and there should be, for the political viability of the country) in what the proper activities of our national government should be. However, in that variegated swath on the right side of American politics that calls itself conservative (though I am not so certain that Robert Taft or even William F. Buckley, Jr. would find common ground with many of those so self-described), the cry to rid the nation of the burden of the swollen Federal government is most often code for the dismemberment of the social welfare apparatus that is the legacy of the New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

The reality, of course, is that the railings of Republican politicians against the intrusions of government are generally disingenuous. History can be inconvenient: It was Richard Nixon who gave us the EPA, George W. Bush the Department of Homeland Security and Medicare Part D. The argument lately is made against the cost of government- deficits and the growing national debt are described as not sustainable.(I have written about this previously.) The only alternatives presented are continuing to fund ineffective or inefficient government programs or eliminating them completely. If it’s broke, don’t fix it- get rid of it. It is the baby-with-the-bath-water syndrome.

Some on the right are beginning to re-think this approach. Writing recently in the National Review Online, Deroy Murdock made these points:

“Why can’t they [the Republicans] identify, say, one dozen antiquated, duplicative, or destructive federal programs and terminate them? Do we still need the 1935 Rural Utility Service, now that it has delivered electricity to Appalachia and currently stays busy by wiring farms with broadband Internet? Also: Kill the sugar and ethanol programs already.”

“Why not implement zero-based budgeting, so every agency must justify its outlays from the first dollar, rather than receive fresh money atop last year’s allocation?”

“Why not scrap Uncle Sam’s taco-stand cash-accounting system and introduce more transparent accrual accounting, which Washington demands of publicly traded companies?”

 “Why not turn every federal bureaucrat into a potential government-waste fighter? Those with winning suggestions could receive one-time bonuses of, say, 1 percent of the taxpayer dollars that they save.”

 “Why not start addressing entitlements by trimming Social Security and Medicare benefits for millionaires? “

These, people, are ideas. Agree with them or not, they are actually a plea for governance. The problem is, of course, that neither party has any interest in reducing the size and  cost of government. There are too many constituencies to be served. In our complex mass society, the Federal government is viewed generally like this:

 “If you need to tax somebody, go right ahead. Just don’t raise my taxes.”

“If you need to eliminate tax code preferences, don’t mess with mine.”

“Please don’t regulate my business or industry, but certainly do something about those other guys”.

“If there is anything I think the Federal government can do for me, then it should.”

The ambivilance of the public attitude was aptly captured in the photo of a person at one of the early Tea Party rallies holding a sign that said “Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare”.

From an economic perspective, it can be argued that, in the history of the United States, the Federal government has been as important as any other force in the creation of wealth. The take-away here is that the “big vs. small” discussion is absurdly reductionist.